Bush versus his critics
By Jackson Murphy
web posted July 30, 2001
It has been just over six months since George W. Bush was
sworn in as the 43rd President and the criticism over his foreign
policy has already reached a feverish pitch. In the past few
weeks Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), former
President Jimmy Carter, and editorials from coast to coast and
beyond have tried to paint Bush as an isolationist.
The refusal by Bush to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol aimed at
reducing manmade greenhouse gasses, the Biological Weapons
Convention (BWC), holding up a U.N. meeting on small arms
trafficking, refuting the International Criminal Court, and pushing
to move beyond the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)
have caused many to label the current administration as acting at
the very least unilaterally or at the very most acting downright
isolationist.
In an interview with USA Today/Gannett Mr. Daschle said, "I
think we are isolating ourselves, and in so isolating ourselves, I
think we're minimizing ourselves." All this from the man who
according to sources sits upon stacks of phone books to give the
illusion of his stature and size.
Then came the strong words of criticism from the former
President. "I have been disappointed in almost everything he has
done, " Carter told the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. He added
that the Bush proposal for missile defense was, "technologically
ridiculous" and that any changes to the ABM treaty would be a
blow to US, "prestige and respect due our country."
The Bush administration has made it clear that the Kyoto
protocol is not in America's best interests. It would seriously
impede the US economy while giving developing nations such as
China a virtual free pass to pollution. Currently only Romania has
ratified the treaty and if Bush wants to prove his point about this
he should send it back to Congress and watch it go down in
flames-it would demonstrate some bipartisanship as the last time
the Senate voted on Kyoto it was defeated 95-0.
The desire by Bush and his team to proceed with a missile
defense system makes total sense-and it seems to be well on the
way to working after this month's successful test. Contrary to
Mr. Carter the system is closer to reality than he thinks and Bush
wants to move beyond the Cold War mentality of Mutually
Assured Destruction. We no longer are living in 1972-there is no
Cold War. The strategic climate is different and calls for different
thinking-what's isolationist about that?
Bush has shown concern over other agreements, such as the
International Criminal Court and the Convention on Small Arms,
as they have provisions that run contrary to the US constitution.
The Small Arms Convention in particular reveals some of the
folly of multilateral agreements. In addition to the implications to
domestic law, like the Second Amendment, the real danger was
in language that forbids the sale of arms to any non-governmental
group including those who may be fighting against genocidal
government.
The refusal to sign onto the BWC is not about producing more
Germ Warfare, but insuring US top-secret installations stay that
way. According to Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for
Security Policy, the US already made this mistake once on the
Chemical Weapons Convention. "Thanks to that treaty, countries
like Iran that are known to have ongoing covert chemical-
weapons programs are being a wholly unwarranted clean bill of
health," wrote Gaffney in a recent National Review Online
column.
The reality is, and many commentators agree, that the comments
by the Senate Leader and the Former President are a case of
back stabbing pure and simple. They violated long-standing
conventions of not criticizing the president while he is
representing the nation and that former presidents have not
criticized those who come after them.
Richard Haass, the director of policy planning at the State
Department, has publicly explained that while the administration
is committed to working with allies on many issues the Bush
Administration is unwilling to compromise American interests for
multilateralism's sake. "What you're going to get from this
administration is a la carte multilateralism," Haass told the
Associated Press.
Moreover the US continues to play a huge role throughout the
world. Ceasefire negotiations in the Middle East, peacekeeping
in the Balkans, pushing for more hemispheric and global free
trade, and the desire to build a missile defense system are far
from being isolationist.
While the US does not seem to be going with the international
flow this does not tell the whole truth. The US seems to be the
only nation on the planet to take into consideration their own
domestic laws and ensure the lifestyles of their citizens. In the
race to sign international agreements the US, and Bush
specifically, seems to be the only one who takes their
implications seriously.
The reason this seems so sudden for the world and the
Democrats in particular is that after eight years of Clinton's, "I-
feel-your-pain-diplomacy" any move back to a foreign policy
based on US interests seems isolationist.
Jackson Murphy is a young independent commentator from
Vancouver, Canada writing on domestic and international
political issues. He also writes weekly at suite101.com (http:
//www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/international_relations_new).
You can reach him at jacksonmurphy@telus.net.
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com